Maliki Plays (Tough) Tribal Politics--Well

The critical Iraqi elections are just a couple of weeks away. The conduct as well as the results are crucial to the stability of the country as well as US plans to remove all troops over the next eighteen months.

The MSM here have paid a great deal of attention to the presumed downsides of the election process, the campaign, and the prospects. One gets the strong sense while reading the assorted treatments that dramatic failure is in the offing, that the results of the election will go a very long way to demonstrating the inherently bankrupt policy of the US from the moment of the invasion onward.

It doesn't push the envelop too far to aver the MSM convey the strong impression of wishing, hoping (perhaps even praying) for a debacle in Iraq of seismic magnitude. A failure of Iraq's internal politics which screams, "The US was wrong! All those American lives were wasted! Our adventure was one not of regime change but of evil."

The reality, of course, is not so simple or so much a projection of an American political morality play. Rather the events in Iraq during the run-up to the election are a completely expectable manifestation of Iraqi demographics, culture, and recent history. Beyond that they reflect the actions of two men who are not only rivals for power but also able practitioners of the tribal or, at best, regional politics which are indigenous to Iraq.

The rivals are the one time favorite son of the neocon ninnies of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld years, Ahmed Chalabi, and the up-from-nowhere surprise Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki. Both men play the game of Iraqi politics quite well; al-Maliki has been playing it better--despite the predictions of the MSM.

To say that Chalabi is duplicitous, mendacious, and tergiversatious is to both state the obvious and pay him a deserved compliment. To point out his connection with Iran is both honest and damning. To continue belaboring the obvious, Chalabi is out for himself. He has a lust for power which crosses the border into the flatly obscene. When leaning on his American "friends" came a cropper several years ago, Chalabi, a man whose religious convictions have the flexibility of those possessed by Saddam Hussein, moved ever closer to the Shia majority finally aligning himself firmly with those who are agents of Tehran.

In his role with the commission vetting the many candidates for the upcoming election, Chalabi used this heaven(?) sent opportunity to plant--and detonate--an electoral IED. He whisked nearly five hundred names off the ballot, most of which were borne by Sunnis, with the bland statement that all were tarnished with a Baathist past. In partial justification of this action Chalabi pointed back to the "de-Baathification" program and orders of Jerry Bremer. He did this while cheerfully ignoring the more recent actions driven by al-Maliki in the "reintegration" effort which brought numerous "Baathists" back into government and the military.

The astute(?) journalists from the US and elsewhere shook their collective heads and declared disintegration of Iraq had been brought closer. In doing so these writers again emphasized the decaying security systems in the country as made evident in the uptick of VBIED attacks. The media assured us that these were the manifestation of spiraling sectarian conflict and a reprise of the bloody days of three to five years ago would soon be upon the nation.

During this brouhaha al-Maliki had made placatory gestures to the Islamist oriented component of the Shia community. The highest profile of these was the growing ban on alcohol sales and use in Baghdad. These moves have paid off to a significant degree.

The main move of al-Maliki came late last week. He dramatically expanded the "reintegration" effort by announcing the immediate recall of some twenty thousand Saddam era officers and NCOs to the armed forces.

The reaction within the American MSM was simply that al-Maliki had made a crass political move, seeking votes at any price. There was a general odor of censure in the coverage as if seeking to gain votes with a "public employment" project is somehow underhanded.

Of course al-Maliki sought votes by this action. It probably has gained him beaucoup--the recalled personnel, their families, their friends and so on. Nothing wrong with that.

Beyond the votes al-Maliki needs, the recall provides badly needed mid-level "management" for the Iraqi armed and security forces. The creation of a three hundred thousand man force has been done very rapidly, and quite incompletely. The particular deficiencies reside within the senior level NCOs and lower field grade officer corps. Bringing back men who never, but never, should have been sacked by Proconsul Bremer is a must-do if the Iraqi armed and security forces are going to become both an effective instrument of state and a representative institution of the nation.

The armed forces are the only potential national institution in a country deeply divided by region, religion, and tribal identity. Over the years, the generations, the centuries, there has rarely, if ever, been a unified Iraqi national identity. There is not one at the moment. However, the potential for one exists today. In large measure this pleasant and optimistic development is the product of al-Maliki and his party.

Prime Minister Maliki and his cohorts have placed a very high emphasis upon the notion that there does exist a unique and compelling Iraqi national identity. On occasion this has reflected itself in obnoxious ways such as the "victory" celebrations last summer with the withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi urban centers. The Geek cheered at the time. He still does.

If the accomplishment of the minimum necessary American strategic goal, that of "not losing" is to have any lasting value or true and positive impact on the Iraqi people, it must come from the propagation and development of a credible sense of national self among the fractionated Iraqi publics. This means, in short, the creation and acceptance of a transcendent national sense of self.

Transcendent national identities do not come quickly. Nor do they come easily. We Americans forget too often and too completely how recently the primary sense of identity, of place came, not from the nation--the US of A--but from a particular region, state, or locality. In shorthand form, the stress was placed on the word, "states" not the word, "united." We were, not so much Americans as Southerners or New Englanders, Texans, or New Yorkers. (Some few of us were even New Mexicans.)

In national politics "ticket balancing" in presidential elections was considered absolutely essential. Even today faint echoes of this hoary tradition persist in the face of all the centripetal forces acting upon us. Most recently regional and state loyalties have resurfaced, albeit cautiously, in the rediscovery of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments propelled by a growing anxiety (dare one write "fear") of the remote, one-size-fits-all approach favored by Washington.

As his actions have made clear, al-Maliki understands the only counter to the divisions which threaten Iraq with energetic disassembly is the force draft development of a transcendent national identity. He has pursued this goal with a well judged and reasonably well-timed balancing of religious, tribal, and (to an unfortunately lesser extent) regional factions and interests.

He has not been successful yet. And, importantly, his nascent chance of success is not only threatened by intentional "wreckers and saboteurs" (to use a fine old Soviet term) such as the Iranian tool and expansively ambitious Chalabi but also by the challenge presented by the return of hundreds of thousands of emigres as well as the resettlement of an even greater number of internally displaced persons.

Iraq as well as al-Maliki have a long and very tough road to travel. The reality is they must travel this road alone. But, it is important to them, to the region and the US that they do not travel this long, lonely road unassisted. If nothing else the blood of our dead, the pain of our wounded, demand that We the People offer whatever helping hand is requested--or even our collective hind end when the development of an Iraqi national sense of self demands that Uncle Sam be given a swift kick.

It would also be pleasant, even important, if the American MSM quit licking their chops in apparent eager anticipation of disaster in Iraq. They do us, their readers, the Iraqis, and even themselves a massive disservice by seeking defeat where victory may yet flourish.

Moving Uranium--Faux Pas Or Provocation?

Watching the people who watch Iran has become as much fun as watching the people who watched the Kremlin was in the good ole days of the Cold War.

The latest piece of amusement came along after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) publicly reported that the Iranians had moved (with IAEA inspectors standing by) most of their stockpile of low enrichment uranium from its underground storage facility to a processing plant above ground. That's right, bucko, over two tons of the stuff right there in a shed visible and attackable from the air.

The physical movement came on the heels of the policy move announced by the Iranian Orator-in-Chief to the effect that Iran was proceeding with enrichment to the twenty percent level in order that Iranians might not lack medical radioisotopes produced in the elderly, US furnished nuclear reactor. The deed coming so quickly in the wake of the words pushed the hot buttons of Iran watchers from Tokyo to Washington. After all, even the most ignorant of diplomats and decision makers understands that once the twenty percent enrichment level is made it is all a bob sled run downhill to weapons grade product.

A flurry of meetings, consultations, and viewings-with-alarm ensued at warp speed. The focus of all these--including at least some of the recent visits to Israel by senior US military figures--has been twofold: Why did the Iranians move the goods? and How to keep Israel from responding to the opportunity?

The rather large contingent of those who believe the Iranians are slicker than Bill Clinton on a good day quickly (one is tempted to write "reflexively") ascribed the move to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which is allegedly seeking to invite an Israeli attack in pursuit of both national unity and a final war with the "Zionist entity." They argue that putting all the nuclear eggs in one basket (well, one large specially constructed cask) with a figurative sign reading "Bomb Here" would constitute an invitation the Israelis could not refuse and the results would be good from the perspective of a badly beleaguered regime.

The Iranian people would unite as one behind the mullahs and the mullahs' men. The hounds of war would be unleashed with the possible result being the "final solution" of the Zionist problem.

As a piece of reasoning this impressive exercise in conspiracy thinking hangs together. It meshes well with the rhetoric of the regime. It takes some account of realities both in the region and the world. It is good enough to assure that the given-to-nervousness Obama administration would launch a quiet diplomatic offensive to keep the Israelis on the reservation.

As reasoning the hypothesis is justifiable. As an exercise in realistic assessment it is not.

Iran is rather unlikely to place the vast majority of its uranium, its potential future nuclear capability, its diplomatic trump card, at high risk. The Koran wavers of Tehran are willing to take calculated risks but not make risky gambles. They are most likely convinced that neither Israel nor the US is convinced that the time is right for the "military option."

This assessment is correct. The push-comes-to-shove moment is not yet here. Arriving rapidly perhaps but not yet upon us.

Reinforcing the low probability of the move being a provocation is the reality that the Iranian centrifuge cascade has been showing itself to be inherently creaky and possessed of a less than impressive reliability. LEW once strewn across the landscape by missiles or bombs is not quickly nor easily replaced--particularly if the means of production are inefficient and cranky.

There is a simpler explanation. It lacks the charm and high drama of the Iranians-as-super-manipulators notion. But, it does meet both technical requirements and the past caution shown by the regime.

The alternative is this. The order to go ahead with twenty percent enrichment caught the engineers by surprise. To execute quickly they had no option but to move the LEW en bloc to the above ground facility and start the new cascade spinning. As was the case in the old Soviet Union, nothing must take precedence over meeting production norms.

This meant taking the calculated risk that Israel would be restrained from seeing an opportunity and taking it. This implied relying upon the Obama administration to carry Tehran's water effectively. It also assured that the production demand could be met in a timely fashion without delaying the production of more LEW.

Given the Obama administration's commitment to sanctions and consequent diplomacy, the Iranian bet was a safe one. Considering that China opposes sanctions as do several current members of the UN Security Council such as Brazil, the last thing the administration needs would be a typically muscular Israeli rising to the nuclear bait.

There is no doubt but JCS Chairman Mullen conveyed the "don't do it!" message loud and clear when he stopped in Israel last week. In doing so he was backstopped by the chief of police in Dubai and his investigation into the assassination of Hamas arms smuggler al-Mabhouh and the consequent diplomatic imbroglio.

The take-away? Simple. The Iranians are clever, but not that clever. They are goal oriented. Not yet suicidal.

Stop Disagreeing! It Hurts The President

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and once-upon-a-time Republican (now Democratic) Senator Arlen Spector sang from the same sheet of music today. They riffed on how the failure of Congress to line up behind President Obama on health care overhaul is both impairing the capacity of the US to conduct foreign policy and diminishing the stature of the country in the eyes of both governments and publics around the world.

Senator Spector went so far as to aver that Congress ought to be "backing up" Mr Obama rather than wrangling over his proposals, policies, and appointments.

Duh!

What a unique concept! The US should drop the facade of representative democracy with untrammeled debate over matters of substance and consequence and adopt the posture of an authoritarian, one-party state such as Egypt or, just maybe, China, or, as a final option, Iran. This will show how serious the US should be taken globally as the "leader of the Free World."

SecState Clinton may be more than a little frustrated by the failures of the administration to accomplish any of its overly expansive goals in foreign relations. But, the blame cannot be put on the doorstep of Congress. The linkage between what happens (or doesn't) on the Hill cannot be legitimately linked with any, let alone all, of the gaps between administration rhetoric and foreign policy reality over the past year.

Pace Ms Clinton, but the difficulties you have been facing are not the result of Congress not confirming assorted Assistant Secretaries and Ambassadors but rather that the policies of the administration bear little relationship to the demands of the real world or the actualities of global politics. For example, the Trolls of Beijing know perfectly well who to call in Washington. They simply do not accept that the US position on many critical issues constitutes a coincidence of national interests between China and the US.

Our recurrent rocky road of relations with Russia is not the result of appointments not confirmed, nor is the consequence of Congressional inaction on health care but rather that the Kremlin fails to see a compelling need to agree with American policy demarches. The same situation obtains with respect to other critical countries: The Obama administration has not put forth policies which either arise from or reflect coinciding national interests.

The bobbing and weaving executed by the Obama team on Mideast and Persian Gulf matters has not reassured wavering states, which see themselves caught by external forces which are both threatening and growing. Neither has the policy of inconsistency bucked up allies whose future depends in large measure upon the reliable and understanding support of the US. And, almost needless to say, the exercises in changeability have done nothing to dissuade or deter adversaries.

With the sole exception of Afghanistan, the Obama approach to foreign relations has brought only stasis at best and decline at worst. Because we have the right man running the show in Afghanistan well backed by an increasing number of troops, events are showing an uptick in our fortunes in Afghanistan--and next door in Pakistan where the movers and shakers have seen enough handwriting on the wall to decide that cooperation with the US is essential if Islamabad is to have any influence on post-Taliban Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan shows that President Obama is not incapable of accepting a healthy dose of realism, making a correct choice, and taking consistent, effective action in foreign policy matters. It shows that the administration is not totally out-to-lunch but is quite willing to take action even when the action taken is opposed rigorously by a strong faction within the Democratic Party.

At the same time the course of events in Afghanistan puts the lie to SecState Clinton's and Senator Spector's argument that Congressional bickering is preventing the effective conduct of foreign relations. The faults, my dear Secretary, Senator, reside not in our Congress but in our policies.

The notion that the entire Congress must fall obediently in line behind the drum majors of the Progressive Caucus and the Maximum Leader in the Oval in order for foreign policy to be formulated and executed effectively is as wrong as a cat barking. The expunging of healthy representative democracy in pursuit of the chimera of policy effectiveness is an idea so unworthy as to deserve contempt.

As Secretary Clinton must know, one of the greatest soft power strengths possessed by the US is the very spectacle of wide open, unconcealed political brawling both inside Congress and without. It is a spectacle which many people--even some Muslims--would love to engage in themselves--if only they lived in a country which allowed it. Our governmental inefficiencies--or at least those attendant upon debate, disagreement, and dissent are the envy of the world. And, they are a power in the world the potency and appeal of which should not be undervalued.

Secretary Clinton, Senator Spector, would you really, really want to toss out one of our most puissant governmental features for a little bit of bureaucratic efficiency? Or a tad of political ease? If so, what are you doing in our government rather than that of one of our adversaries?

Warning! Stop the "God Gap"

The WaPo reported today on a study sent to the White House by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The Council is influential not by its reputation or size but rather by its close relationship with President Obama since the days he was an ambitious state senator.

The substance of the study is the pernicious influence of secularism on American foreign policy and relations. The thirty-two member committee which authored the report sees this as having resulted in a serious diminishment of our "capabilities." As a result the committee recommended the Obama administration make religion an "integral part of our foreign policy."

Whew!

This view is, to use a Buddhist notion, both good and bad. Religion is a very powerful motivator and consolidator of political action. The world has seen this reality more times than one cares to think about over the past several thousand years.

The world certainly sees the power and pertinacity of religion today. There is no way that an individual, let alone a responsible government, can say that any factor other than religious belief systems has been responsible for the vast majority of killing and dying the past decade.

The American political, academic, and chattering class elite has been flatly schizo about religion and its effects on human behavior--particularly since the potency of religiously predicated fear and loathing was demonstrated so vividly on 9/11. On the one hand the elite of this country (and most of the West generally) has sought to uphold the secular ideal of separation between the instruments of state and the communities of faith(s). On the other they have sought to hold Islam qua Islam harmless against the charge of any linkage between its beliefs and the consequences seen on and after that fateful September morning.

The attempt to remove Islam from the realm of political expression--including violence and terror--is both a disservice to our country and an insult to Islam. In short, insofar as there is a "God gap" in this area, it comes from our willful and repeated insistence that somehow Islam has no political dimension, and thus Muslims who engage in violence, terror, jihad, are somehow misunderstanding and misinterpreting Islam.

The reduction of the resulting "God gap" and its impact on US foreign policy consists simply of acknowledging the reality contained in the Koran and the other sacred writings of Islam. It means accepting the fact that Islam contains at its very heart the justification for suicide bombings, terror, and a constant screen of intentional prevarication meant to mislead and discommode the opposition: the infidels and apostates. It means taking Islam at its sacred word: of Islam's division of the human race into the house of peace (Islam) and the house of war (everybody else) as well as the need for constant warfare until the house of war is bought into complete subjugation.

This necessary adjustment of view does not imply a couple of important things.

The recognition of the role of Islam per se in the acts of Islamist jihadist warfare does not, for example, imply that all Muslims are ready, willing, and eager to strap on a suicide vest, or pick up an AK, or even provide money to those who are doing so. Most Muslims are not unlike the majority of adherents of other faiths. They are compartmentalized in their thinking. Some matters are for the mosque, for prayers, for the sacred days; others are secular, for this world and not the next, for today and for the individual or his family not for tomorrow and the entire Muslim "community."

Most Muslims are not willing to risk all in the hopes that by doing so they will find paradise or at least avoid hell. The same may be said of most Christians, most Jews, most Hindus and so on. But, at the same time, honesty requires that we all acknowledge that the sacred soul of Islam unlike the other major religions provides rich justification, even provocation for war and its nasty ancillaries. To do less is not only to create a "God gap" but to denature Islam, to diminish it and the power the faith has for its believers.

The second implication is simpler. The US would be ill-advised to say the least if it were to hawk its presumed Christian or (much as the Geek hates this circumlocution) the "Judeo-Christian" heritage and foundation. It does not matter how "godly" we Americans proclaim ourselves to be now or in our past, the fact remains that it is the "wrong" sort of "God" to whom we offer our thanks or our importunings. To the Muslim and even more to the political Muslim, the Islamist, Christians and, to a greater extent, the Jew is misguided at a minimum. The Christian, the Jew follow incomplete revelations, revelations polluted by man while Islam is pure and complete, the final revelation given to the "Perfect Man," the Prophet Mohammad.

In short, saying, "See, we Americans are godly," won't cut the mustard with the adversary. Our propensity for political "God talk" will be of no avail in the Manichean world of the Islamist, the political Muslim. It may play well in Peoria but it is a no-sale in those many areas of the world which give rise to Islamism and its armed twin, jihadism.

However the emphasis on the "God Gap" does require that we Americans and our European cousins both think about and talk about just what it is we believe in, just what moves us, just what our collective aspirations might be. Do our fundamental predicates transcend the purely material, the transitory fulfillment of today's needs and desires? What verities do we subscribe to, promote, stand for?

If nothing else the Chicago Council's paper may cause some thinking in and around the Oval as to what and whom we are fighting. More, some thinking as to just what we are fighting for beyond keeping our country safe from the jihadists.

At the very least the paper might cause the Nice Young Man From Chicago to go beyond the glittering generalities and distortions of history which marked his Cairo address last year and put forth a clear picture of what we Americans are for--and against. This is critical even if when all is said God is conspicuous by absence.

The Great Anglo-Saxon Conspiracy Defeated Again

It's tough to be a native English speaker nowadays. It was bad enough a while back as one French intellectual after another lambasted the great Anglophone conspiracy--only to be followed to the cameras and microphones by a parade of Parisian politicos doing the same.

The Spanish (Socialist) government took up the bash-the-Anglos cudgel late last week. Madrid has blamed their homegrown fiscal crisis on the Anglo-Saxon gang, alleging assorted sinister but unspecified actions undertaken by this secret cabal which have intentionally undermined the solvency of Spain (along with, presumably, the rest of the "PIGS" group.)

Now, the one time colonies of Spain have entered the lists. The thirty-three countries south of the Rio Grande have resolved to form their own Latin America/Caribbean group of nations. Pointedly excluded were the more or less anglophone states of Canada and the US. (It appears that the Spanish and Portuguese speakers of the region were willing to allow Jamaica and other residue of the old British Empire hang around in the new and so far unnamed group.)

The US State Department viewed the move which was spearheaded by Brazil and Mexico with apparent equanimity. Probably the folks at Foggy Bottom were privately pleased that the assorted hotheads of the Lands Down South including Hugo Chavez, Ewo Morales, Raul Castro, and the deathless Ortega brothers didn't try a coup in the now rather stodgy Organization of American States which is a monument to the Good Neighbor policy of FDR and, like many other ideas of that long-ago period has outlived its utility.

Feeling robust as all get out following this slap at the Anglophones, the representatives of Latin America and the Caribbean countries lined up in full-throated support of Argentina in its current dust-up with the UK. Invoking assorted elderly UN resolutions the delegates found the oil exploration underway in the territorial waters of the Falkland Island dependency to be all kinds of icky-poo, a threat to world peace, a slap in the face of the international community, and a gross offense against history.

After working themselves into an appropriately high dudgeon over economic exploitation, the glories of nationalism, and the evils of capitalism, the delegates condemned the UK, applauded Argentina, and called upon the "international community" to stop the theft of Argentinian patrimony. Argentina claimed a great diplomatic victory.

Fer sure, dudes.

Behind the rhetoric is the reality. Argentina is an economic basket case with no immediate end in sight. The government is feeling pressure. And, the pressure is both real and growing, the inevitable legacy of decades of poorly conceived and worse executed experiments in central state socialism under both civilian and military dictatorships.

Buenos Aires wants to be bought off. A goodly percentage of the potential oil revenues would do quite nicely, thank you. Particularly if all the risks of exploration and development are borne by UK and other countries' companies and investors. Just slip Buenos Aires a percentage, say, forty percent, as hush money, and the ancient and quite unsuccessfully prosecuted claim to the Falklands will be extinguished with equal silence.

Brazil, which has large potential oil and natural gas reserves in its exclusive economic zone waters would be happy if Argentina had control (or at least a portion of "the say") over the Falklands' oil. This eventuality would make competition easier to manage. The UK is likely to be more hard headed in its development and marketing of the oil reserves, which would limit Brazil's competitive advantage globally. The relatively less efficient Argentinian approach would be to Brazil's longer term advantage.

The same argument applies to Mexico and Venezuela. Both countries have significant reserves which are less and less efficiently extracted and brought to the international market. Neither country sees any percentage (other than negative) in the Falkland product being sold by the aggressive and efficient companies of the UK (and quite probably) the US. Socialism of either the Mexican or (to a greater extent) the Venezuelan sort cannot hang with the front porch dogs of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. And, both governments know it very well. Better see the Falklands oil fields under Hispanophone control.

While the Obama administration and many in the "Progressive Caucus"of the Democratic Party may think they are ordained to preside over the "graceful decline" of the US, there are few in the American public let alone the American business community who would agree that our best days are long in our past. The US, the West, and the world need oil if for no other reason than it takes time--a lot of time--to bring the nuclear reactors and alternative energy prime movers on line in significant quantity. The oil of the Falklands as well as other already known deposits are necessary to keep the world running as the alternatives are developed.

This means the US has little realistic choice other than supporting the UK in its contretemps with Argentina. It probably does not mean war is looming, but the potential for that undesired option is lowered if the US quickly and firmly plants its flag alongside that of the UK.

Given that it is both welcome and fortuitous that the assorted LatAm and Caribbean states have decided to form an English-free zone, it is better for all parties that the new outfit serve as the forum for the Falkland dispute. Lord knows, nothing will happen outside the realm of talk and posturing.

Meanwhile, the adults of the Anglo-Saxon conspiracy can get on with the job of providing necessary basic resources for the world.

Shocking News! Snipers Can Slow Our Troops

The MSM including the Los Angeles Times and the old, reliable NYT have been hyperventilating. The cause has been the increased use of snipers by Taliban as the troops advance into Marja.

While it is true that Taliban trigger pullers have not and are not noted for their marksmanship over the past several years, the tradition of accurate shooting has never been completely lost by the Afghans. Nor did the American and British troops anticipate that they would be facing only a hail of relatively inaccurate light automatic weapons fire.

Snipers have been a feature of all wars--including the many which have been fought by foreigners in Afghanistan over the past century and a half. British soldiers were repeatedly taken under heavy and effective sniper fire during their various punitive expeditions during the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. So also were the Russian troops in the long years of agony in the 1980s.

American offensive operations in South Vietnam repeatedly encountered sniper fire from designated "stay behind" operators whose function in life was that of delaying the American advances. Quite often a large US operation was stalled, even stopped, by a very small number of snipers firing from carefully chosen and well concealed positions. It was not unusual for an entire battalion to come to a halt after taking a few incoming rounds from a Charley in a tree.

At that time the answer, indeed, "the school solution" was for all hands to squat down and wait until an airstrike or two leveled the offensive piece of real estate. Then the grunts could get a wiggle on. Until the next Chuck in the bush pulled the trigger a couple of times.

As a result the planned operation slowed to a glacial pace. The unacceptability of friendly losses coupled with the ready availability of heavy air and indirect ground fire dictated the stop-wait-bomb-go approach. The assorted journalists viewing the little bit of war did not seem ready to declare an impending American defeat as a consequence of this cautious way of war fighting.

In Afghanistan the US has wisely chosen not to use its overwhelming air and indirect firepower given the presence of civilian non-combatants in the area of operations. Thus we cannot follow the Vietnam era style of calling in the fast movers and gunships or the far off artillery to abate the sniper nuisance.

Since risking American (or British or Afghan) lives is not desirable and the use of heavy weapons unacceptable the result is ground movement will be very, very slow. This result in no way implies either that the US and other troops are "imperiled" (to use the NYT phrase) or that the Marja offensive is failing.

Perhaps the reporters and editors of the various MSM find success by the American side to be boring, lacking news value, or otherwise unimportant. Or, possibly the writers and their supervisors stateside are simply unaware of the realities of ground combat. In any event the slanting of the coverage is both inaccurate and unnecessary.

The real deal is that snipers and mines (a category which includes those of the IED sort) encourage slow, cautious movement by the guys on the sharp end of things. Both snipers and mines require a strong sense of individual and group resolve and a very great commitment to the skills of observation and patience as well as possession of rapid reflexes. Working against snipers and mines is emotionally draining, physically exhausting, and lacks the rewards of, say, a breathless assault powered by adrenaline and testosterone in equal measure.

To be successful an infantry offensive operation requires only that you keep on advancing--and the other side keeps on dying or retreating. There is no requirement that speed records be shattered in the process. High speed, protracted movement is appropriate, even necessary for armored units operating in an open, civilian-free venue, but not in an infantry attack in an urban area where women, children, and other non-combatants are conspicuous by their presence.

To date all the meaningful indicators from Marja and environs point to the methodical combined actions of the US Marines, British Army, and Afghan National Forces being successful. Ground is being occupied. Taliban are being killed, captured, or forced to flee. Civilians are not being caught in the crossfire--despite the best efforts of Taliban to compel that consequence.

Marja is demonstrating once again that steady, disciplined, highly trained, and well motivated troops can effectively execute even the most demanding of operations against even an enemy who is not limited by concerns for his life or those of civilians. The British Army and American Marines are noted among the military forces of the world for the excellence of their discipline and steadiness, the level of their training and leadership--and their ability to get on with the mission no matter the nature or degree of difficulty.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that the established media of the world, particularly in the US and UK, have not gotten a firm grip on the fundamental realities of the war in Helmand. It is regrettable to say the least that so many in the MSM wring their hands over threats that do not exist and seem so willing to predict a defeat which cannot occur.

From The Jaws of Victory--Iraq Goes South

The US has achieved its necessary minimum strategic goal in Iraq: That of "not-losing." This fact, of course, is not the same as "winning," particularly if "victory" is defined as it was so many years ago by the Bush/Cheney administration and the legion of neocon ninnies within it.

Back in the hype filled days surrounding the unforgettable "Mission Accomplished!" moment, We the People were assured not only that Saddam Hussein was a very icky-poo person (undeniable) but also (stand by for the hallucinatory) that Iraq would emerge from this great exercise in regime change as a totally modern, completely Western country complete with honest, pluralistic, secular democracy; an efficient, non-corrupt judiciary; a free market economy; human rights for all; and shopping malls filled with Chinese products. (Oh, yes, and the war would be paid for by the grateful Iraqis from their boundless oil revenues.)

Many, if not all the halcyon promises were made by the brigade of neocons who, in turn, based their roseate views on those of Ahmed Chalabi. This particular Iraqi exile was as loved by his neocon sponsors and disciples as he was both loathed and distrusted by most of the Iraqi expat community. Not to put too fine a point on the matter, Chalabi was (and is) a corrupt, personally ambitious man utterly lacking in scruples. The man also has been a highly effective and committed tool of Iranian policy.

Chalabi's capacity to inflict grievous harm on the Iraqi body politic was evident at the very beginning of the US invasion. No sooner had the statues of Saddam fallen than Chalabi was placed in charge of the "de-Baathification" process. In conjunction with awesomely ill-advised actions of the American viceroy, Jerry Bremer, Chalabi's efforts at removing all traces of Baathist Party influence upon the transitional government assured the fulmination of armed, sectarian conflict.

It took years and many, many lives for the US and its partners to suppress the resulting multi-party insurgency. While the shooting, bombing, killing and dying occupied front page status, Ahmed Chalabi and his partner in let's-destroy-Iraq-for-Iran movement, Ali al-Lami, faded into the woodwork.

With the success of the surge and the coming of what passes for peace in the country, Chalabi and his fellow traveller(s) have popped back to center stage. Their task now as it was before is to execute Iranian policy. The job now, as before, is to stimulate conflict between Shia and Sunni by barring effective Sunni participation in the electoral process.

Using the unelected Justice and Accountability Council as their instrument, the Tehran Quislings moved to block five hundred Sunni candidates from the upcoming parliamentary elections. The pretense was (big surprise coming) that these men were Baathists.

As a way of reigniting sectarian violence this move was better than dozens of suicide bombers attacking Shia pilgrims. Thus, it fit Tehran's needs perfectly.

The US is aware of the actual dynamics at work. General Ray Odierno stated at a recent press conference that Chalabi, al-Lami, and company were "clearly influenced by Iran." He also noted that the terrible twosome regularly meet with a high ranking officer of the al-Quds force, a component of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps tasked with out-of-country operations.

Ambassador Christopher Hill when asked about the general's remarks, replied, "I am in one hundred percent agreement with General Odierno." That pretty much says it all.

The actions of Chalabi, al-Lami, and company have put the next election for president and parliament alike at risk, great risk. Certainly the best political hope of Iraq for a stable, predominantly secular and pluralistic government headed by Iyad Allawi has been severely, even fatally eroded by the efforts of the Tehran puppets.

So far the Obama administration has been nearly as silent about the state of play in Iraq as the once mighty neocon ninnies. While the silence of the neocons is readily comprehensible (who likes to be reminded of how they were played for the fool) that of the administration is not so easy to understand.

It is not in American interests for Iraq to fall into another round of bloody chaos. Nor is it in US interests for Iraq to come even closer to the Iranian orbit. Both eventualities would be injurious to stability in the Persian Gulf region and emboldening to the Iranian government. The actualization of either potential would erode US status and influence throughout the Mideast and have negative effects on our policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Admittedly the US has very little leverage on the councils of state in Baghdad. But, that does not mean the administration serves American interests well by limiting itself to proforma expressions of moral support. Rather the Obama-ites should, no, must use all means available to it in order to impress upon the Iraqi government that its acceptance of the Chalabi/Lami coup d'etat constitutes the signing of a death warrant upon the state.

There is no need for the US--even the current administration--to hand Iran another victory, particularly a victory which renders the loss of thousands of American lives nugatory. Rather than standing back with bowed head and folded arms as Iran wins through the acts of Iraqi traitors, the Obama administration must --for its own honor if nothing else--fight tooth and nail on the side of democracy in Iraq.

Wins(?) And Losses (?) In Spookworld

The wild and wacky world of spooks has been getting a fair amount of probably unwelcome play in the world's media of late. First, there is the ongoing Affair of the Dead Hamas Gunrunner in Dubai. This has been joined by the Snatch of Taliban's Number Two Heavyweight in Pakistan. The second, at least can be seen legitimately as a victory for the guys down the hall in black-ops. The first may be another black eye for the Masters of the Mossad.

Arguably the world is better off now that Mahmoud al-Mabhouh has gone to his reward. The late Mr Mabhouh was a talented, highly motivated, true believing thug of the blackest sort, a specialist in the arts of clandestine killing, fomenting terror, and supplying war. Powered by hate, zeal, and revanchism, he stood behind killings, kidnappings, and the knifefighting sort of war which has long characterized the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The Israelis no doubt wanted him dead. There is no doubt but that the government, intelligence services, and people of Israel are very happy that Mr Mabhouh is now examining the root systems of daisies up close and personal. But, there is doubt that the government of Israel and its legendary intelligence service, the Mossad, are responsible for the Mabhouh Hit.

This is not to say it is impossible for the Mossad to have shown the awesome combination of arrogance and amateur tradecraft which is so evident in the events surrounding the death of al-Mabhouh. The mind rebels against the notion that the often highly competent Mossad could have been so indifferent to the presence and capacities of closed circuit surveillance television systems as to leave a virtual minute-by-minute record of the eleven person team's presence and actions. The mind also boggles at the Mossad being so totally out-to-lunch as to counterfeit passports so poorly (not using an alphanumeric coding for example) as to invite easy identification.

(A side question: How come the eagle-eyed pass control officials of Dubai missed the glaring errors on the passports, particularly those purportedly issued by the Irish and German governments? Given that governments notify each other as to the format of passports, it is hard to understand how these obviously false documents got by the border guards and customs men.)

Balancing these concerns is historical reality. From time to time the Mossad, apparently driven by a misplaced belief in its own press releases, has performed with exceptional arrogance and ineptitude. One occasion was the unfortunate hit conducted in Norway on an innocent Lebanese waiter misidentified as a terrorist figure of note. Another was the badly botched assassination attempt in Jordan in 1997 which left the Israelis covered with embarrassment, the head of Mossad sacked, and Jordan's king outraged.

Benjamin Netanyahu was prime minister in 1997. He is PM again today. The Mossad director back then was an overly muscular sort. So is Meir Dagan, who has been capo of Israel's spooks for eight years now.

Mossad has enjoyed a great deal of presumed success in eliminating Israel's enemies using clandestine and covert means. They have not been immune to allowing success to be imputed improperly to their efforts rather than pointing out the potential for internecine rivalries to have been behind the death of one enemy or another. Indeed, the Israelis have turned the reputation of the Mossad into an impressive weapon in their psychological warfare arsenal.

As a result it would not behoove the Israeli government to deny involvement in the death of al-Mabhouh. At the same time the customs of international protocol prohibit claiming responsibility. So, the Israeli ForMin was right in neither denying nor accepting Mossad's role in the killing.

As long as studied ambiguity surrounds the Dubai Affair, no government other than that of Dubai is going to be particularly perturbed by the demise of Mr Mabhouh. He was a throughly unpleasant character with whom one dealt only because state policy required. If the Dubai chief of police had not been so personally annoyed by the blatant nature of the killing and the almost defiant way in which it was conducted, it is doubtful that anyone in the United Arab Emirates would have been disturbed by the event.

However, the chief has put his head on the line in the case so now other governments must as well. The British are taking the matter seriously. So also are the Irish and Germans. This means, at the least, a great show of "getting to the bottom of matters" must be made over the next few days and weeks. Ultimately, this may very well rebound to the overall diplomatic and political disadvantage of Israel--particularly if Mossad was involved even indirectly.

If Mossad was carrying out the instructions of its government, some very real soul searching is necessary. No, there is no need to contemplate the ethics of the killing: it was well deserved by the recipient. Rather, the "Institute" must re-examine its tendency toward an unfortunate and periodic exhibitionism. There is a reason for clandestine and covert operations--not to get caught, not to be indicted, and, most assuredly, not to be convicted even in the court of public opinion.

The "win" column for the spooks is headed by the capture of Mullah Baradar by a combination of CIA and the Pakistani Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI.) Baradar has been on the top of the capture list since December for the US. Killing him would have been OK but catching him was far preferable. Finally, a fortuitous happening apparently allowed CIA to connect all the relevant dots and, with ISI in tow, take the Mullah into durance vile.

The Pakistanis had a couple of good reasons to cooperate whole heartedly in the take down as not only has the US finally agreed to furnish them with (unarmed) small UAVs but Islamabad has come to realize that only by cooperating can they keep themselves in play for influence in Afghanistan following the defeat of Taliban. It appears the Pakistani government has decided that the US is likely to achieve its minimum necessary strategic goal of not-losing in Afghanistan and now is looking at how best to play the endgame.

Baradar is currently in Pakistani hands with CIA playing an observer role. This implies that the interrogation will be more robust than if the mullah were in American custody. The consequences in terms of organisational disruption for Taliban are likely to be severe and quite negative. Taken together with the ongoing Predator strikes and the offensive in Helmand province, the future for the Fearless Thugs of Taliban does not look as bright as it did a month or two ago.

It is unfortunate that the same cannot be said of Hamas in the aftermath of the killing of al-Mabhouh. But, in the world of spooks one out of two ain't half bad.

Madam Secretary, You've Got It Wrong

Secretary of State Clinton described Iran as a "military dictatorship" in the making during her current show-their-flags tour of the Mideast. The purpose of the SecState's diplomatic blitz is the gaining of open support for a new round of sanctions from the oil sheikdoms of the Gulf. As an add-on of some importance, she is attempting to lever Saudi Arabia into guaranteeing China's oil supply in the event Iran cuts back on its shipments following the imposition of new sanctions.

One of the gambits being employed by Ms Clinton--and the rest of the Obama administration--is focusing on the role of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Obama team is taking the line that the IRGC constitutes a privileged elite and sanctions targeted on it will not hurt the Iranian people generally and may help the political opposition.

Secretary Clinton has taken the line to its next logical extent when she averred the IRGC was a nascent military dictatorship surpassing in power both the "elected" civilian government and the clerical establishment. While this reasoning sounds good it suffers from one minor flaw: It is as wrong as a cow growling.

The nature of the error can be understood quite easily from an apposite historical analogy. In Nazi Germany the SS ran its own industries, controlled much of the advanced technology development, and operated its own rather substantial economy. It was a state-within-a-state.

At no time, not even in the closing weeks of the war, did the SS either control or dictate terms to the regime of Adolph Hitler. Despite having his own rather substantial and certainly very well equipped private army the head of the SS, Himmler, never threatened a coup, never took over functional control of the Nazi apparatus. Rather, Himmler and his very large establishment were complete and effective servants of the regime and the ideology behind it.

The same phenomena were at work over the years in the Soviet Union. The organs of state security were states within states. So also was the Red Army. Yet at no time did these bodies present a threat to the Party and regime. Authoritarian? Yes. Military dictatorship? Not a chance.

So it is in Iran. The IRGC is both a state within a state and a very loyal and dedicated servant of the regime and the ideology upon which the regime and state rest. There is no hint, nor is there any real potential, of the IRGC taking over the reins of power and changing the semi-theocracy of today into the military dictatorship of tomorrow.

Right now Iran is a semi-theocracy. Today, there are some democratic features at work in the political processes. However, the current system is not dynamically stable. The assorted pressures at work within Iranian social, political, and economic life are shoving the country ever closer to an authoritarian theocracy. When this happens, the IRGC will be the key instrument of regime maintenance. It will be (with a tip of the hat to the old Soviets) "the sword and the shield of the revolution" even more than it is presently.

The IRGC will not become a "military dictator" and Iran will not be a "military dictatorship." Ms Clinton has it wrong with her animadversion.

The coming Iranian theocracy will be a legitimate product of Islamic religious, which is to say, Islamic political thought. A theocratic state is totally compatible with Islam. It is not pushing the envelop to assert that a theocratic state is organic to the precepts of the Koran.

The leadership and most, if not all, the members of the IRGC are ideologically sound. They are good, observant Muslims of the Shia branch. Thus their loyalties are to the ideology espoused by the clerical establishment of Iran and the principles first laid down by Ayatollah Khomeini.

The IRGC will carry out its many missions both at home and abroad, military and industrial, overt and covert, with dedication, ruthlessness, and a degree of efficiency. It will not, however, become the government. Nor will it replace the clerical establishment with one of its own manufacture.

Ms Clinton and her fellows in the Obama administration may not like to admit the real deal. The target of all diplomacy, sanctions and, if need be, war is not and will never be the IGRC but rather the religious ideology and eschatological orientation of the regime in both its civilian and clerical components. The target is and will be, in the words of an Australian judge passing sentence on five convicted wannabe jihadists, "intolerant, inflexible religious conviction."

Without going into the morass of Islam generally, suffice it to note that the Iranian regime of the past thirty-one years has shown itself to be motivated by "intolerant, inflexible religious conviction." Even the often praised in the West leaders of the "Green Movement" since last June share the basic premises of the clerics and the current Tehran government--and the IRGC.

It is the same "intolerant, inflexible religious convictions" which have made it impossible for normal diplomatic means--including sanctions--to have any positive, lasting effect on the Iranian courses of action. Far more than any mere "military dictatorship," Iran today is immune to the typical blandishments and coercions of the Great Game of Nations.

This is a harsh reality for the touchy-feely types of the post-Modern, multi-cultural elite to accept. They cannot bring themselves to believe that a regime in today's world can actually find its strength in a set of religious precepts laid down in the Arabian desert more than a thousand years ago. They cannot wrap their minds around the concept of "theocracy" even as it both stares them in the face and threatens to bite them in the tush.

So, as a sort of default state, the lawyerly minds of Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and the rest of the crew fall back on an irrelevant boogieman from the past--the "military dictatorship." With "thinking" of that sort, we had best prepare ourselves for a world with a nuclear capable Iran--or a war which can only be won in a narrowly technical sense.

Lebanon, Hariri And The UN

Five years ago the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated in Beirut. The results were both dramatic and--at the time--seemed far reaching. The administration of George W. Bush was quick to condemn Syria as the architect of the killing and suspended diplomatic representation in Damascus.

The US was not alone in pinning the blame on Syria. The UN did so as well when it created a special investigative unit focusing on the killing. The first head of this creature of the Security Council was Detlev Mehlis, an experienced German prosecutor. Mehlis lost no time accusing the Syrian government of executing the assassination. Arrests were promised--and made.

Then the great crime fighting adventure petered out. Mehlis was replaced by a monument to doing nothing, Sergi Brammertz, a Belgian judge. When Brammertz slept his way out of office in late 2007, he was replaced by the more energetic Canadian, Daniel Bellemare.

Mr Bellemare's effort was upgraded by the UN in status but it was too late for anything real to come out of the investigation. Indeed, the four Lebanese security officers arrested by Mehlis had to be turned loose. The task of indicting low level operatives could not be accomplished. Of course this meant and means there is no chance of ever proving the initial contention that the Syrian government at the highest levels was directly responsible for Hariri's death.

While the UN creature floundered and frittered, events in the Mideast moved on. Hariri's son, Saad, became Prime Minister. The Iranian/Syrian proxy, Hezbollah, became an effective component of the government. And, Syria once again became a prime actor in Lebanon's political theater.

Sectarian conflict both real and artificial have declined markedly following the "Cedar Revolution" which occurred in the wake of the Hariri killing. Balancing this was the emergence of Hezbollah as a prime factor of Lebanese politics. So important is Hezbollah in the internal stability of Lebanon that the "tail" of Hezbollah is waving the "dog" of the Beirut government particularly when it comes to threats of war with Israel.

The strength of Hezbollah as well as its relations with Damascus could not have been far from Saad Hariri's consciousness when he met with Bashar Assad last December. Equally in the foreground of PM Hariri's thinking was the role of Lebanon as a battleground should push come to shove between Hezbollah and Israel.

The steady rapprochement between Hariri's portion of the Lebanese government and Syria renders the ongoing UN investigation into the murder of five years ago not only irrelevant but potentially dangerous. Present and future realities loom far larger than the solution of a cold case homicide.

The Obama administration has shown (thankfully) an awareness of this. The reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with Syria is not only overdue, it is critical to gaining some traction toward that ever-illusive goal of a Mideast peace settlement. As has been argued many times in this blog, Syria is a rational actor with a firm price for participation in a peace agreement with Israel. It is also a key player with respect to either letting loose the terrorist dogs of war--or restraining them.

After some early missteps Bashar al-Assad has shown himself to be his father's son. He has the same overarching goal of regime preservation. He is realistic regarding Syria's strengths and weaknesses. He has a keen appreciation of the necessity of balanced and conflicting sponsors or supporters. As his father played the Soviet card with skill so also does Bashar play the Iranian one today. In both cases the goal was the achievement of leverage with (and even over) US policy so as to keep the regime in place.

US interests are best served by a constricted Hezbollah, a stable Lebanon, a lessening of Iranian influence in the region and some movement toward a comprehensive Mideast peace. The achievement of these goals requires the willing cooperation of Syria.

Syria's price is not low. Damascus wants a free (even if disguised) hand in Lebanon. The Golan Heights must be returned to Syrian sovereignty. The US must show it is not so fickle as to cut and run whenever something unpleasant happens in the region.

The current Lebanese government is realistic enough to understand that Syria will play a role, a major role, in the country. It is Beirut's preference that the role be played directly albeit covertly by the Syrian government and not indirectly and openly by Hezbollah.

The Hariri ministry is also realistic enough to understand that should Hezbollah and Israel go to war the major loser will be Lebanon and its current government. Syria is a potent force against war--or at least a war which is not authorized by Damascus.

The Obama administration would be well-advised to follow-up on the normalization of diplomatic relations. A necessary and very small step in the right direction which would benefit both Lebanon and Syria is the use of our influence in the Security Council to pull the plug on the investigation of the Hariri assassination. The charade has no use, not now, not ever. The sooner it be allowed to die the better.

At least this move would be an easy one. No risk and high payoff. A good sort of warm-up for the far more daunting task of convincing Israel that the Great Golan Land Grab must come to a speedy and complete end.

That, bucko, is a very real toughie!

The World's Horizon Gets More Fun, Finally

Watching the Obama administration's fumbling efforts at crisis management, diplomacy, and foreign affairs generally has become both boring and frustrating. Not since the equally brainless, clueless days of the Ford and Carter administrations has the horizon of foreign relations been so flat, so unbroken by anything resembling real challenge and real success.

Now, where the mists of the South Atlantic meet the fogs of Argentinian politics we can see the emerging outlines of something which combines the old and the new, the foreign and domestic, the regional and the global in a very interesting way. The place in the center of the new crosshairs is the Falkland Islands. The reason is oil.

The American owned drilling rig Ocean Guardian is en route to the Falklands. To err on the side of accuracy it is headed to a spot in the ocean roughly one hundred miles northwest of Port Stanley and thus well within the exclusive economic zone of the British dependency. It is believed that as many as sixty million barrels of oil may be found under the seabed. (By comparison the North Sea oilfield has produced roughly forty million barrels to date.)

The Argentinian government tore up the draft agreement with the UK which would have provided for joint development of the oil resources in this long disputed region. This 2007 action has been followed by the Argentinian Congress passing legislation last December attaching the Falklands to the province of Tierra del Fuego. In addition the Buenos Aires government has taken the matter to the International Court at the Hague.

Argentinian nationalism runs high, very high--and not just when an illegitimate, bloody military junta is running the show. Making matters more pressing for the administration of President Christina de Kirchner is the dismal state of the Argentinian economy. Considering how dependent the country is upon financial assistance and support from the US and the international financial agencies, it is not too wide of the mark to say the Argentinian economy's situation is desperate. Of course, desperate times cry for desperate solutions.

A whole bunch of petrobucks now and into the next few decades must look very, very appealing to the lads and lassies of Buenos Aires about now. The ForMin has not only reinvoked the ancient (and equally insubstantial) claim of sovereignty over the "Islas Malvinas" but threatened to take all necessary measures to prevent "illegal" operations there.

In the real world the Falklands are not the ripe and undefended plum the Argentinian generals took them to be back in 1982. Now the islands are well defended. Now, again unlike the years preceding the Argentinian invasion, the British government is and has been quite clear in its determination to maintain sovereignty over the islands.

It boggles the mind to consider that Buenos Aires might actually be considering the "military option" in the Falklands. It is far more likely that the de Kirchner government is attempting a bit of crude international blackmail.

The hard pressed Argies must be hoping that a bit of bluster, a tad of threat, a bit of an appeal to the "international community" will result in the UK offering a better deal than it had before in terms of splitting oil revenues. The de Kirchner crowd must be betting that the wobbly Brown ministry facing a very demanding uphill battle in the next elections will be more willing to bribe than hang tough.

Beyond those factors the strategists of Buenos Aires are more than likely convinced that the British public lacks the political will it demonstrated back in 1982. The highly evident war weariness shown by the British public regarding Afghanistan as well as the acrimonious investigation into the Blair ministry's decision to join the US in the invasion of Iraq have served to convince the Argentinians that the British will be quite willing to genuflect before the illusory winds of war in the South Atlantic.

If matters escalate in the slightest the Obama administration will have one more unexpected foreign policy challenge. The question will be simple: Does the US in 2010 act as it did in 1982, complete support of a key partner? Considering the fact that British troops are fighting and dying along with US Marines in Operation Moshtarak and that Britain is a strong adherent of the no-nukes-for-the-mullahs position, the answer would seem to be self-evident.

But, considering the parallel universe so often inhabited by the Obama administration, the forces of the real world may not be so compelling. When one takes a close look at the administration's approach to foreign affairs in which no country is seen as an "enemy" and very few, if any, as "friends," in which the purpose of economic sanctions is not to coerce a government into compliance with US policy demands but only to convince the government to come back to the negotiating table, the probability of taking an unreservedly pro-London position is small.

It is far more likely that President Obama will emulate Rodney King and wail, "Can't we all just get along." In pursuit of this goal the President and his freight haulers will seek victory through appeasement, peace through abnegation.

At that point it is to be hoped that the British will remind Mr Obama of their own experience with feeding raw meat to a wolf in the hopes the beast will turn vegan. It was called Munich. And, World War II.

I Wannabe A "Martyr"

The Pakistani Interior Minister has confirmed the long running buzz that Hakimullah Mehsud had joined his predecessor Baitullah Mehsud in Paradise courtesy of an American Predator strike. Almost immediately Taliban in Pakistan announced a new entry in the I-Wannabe-A-Martyr sweepstakes. The new guy is Noor Jamal who goes by the moniker, "Mullah Toofan".

"Mullah Toofan" is a very bad guy whose previous claims to fame have been based on his video performances in the roll of whip wielding thug and Decapitator First Class. His able right arm and skills with sword and knife have made him a feared figure among the Taliban's Mighty Warriors of Allah. His oratorical skills are also of the requisite sort as he has made many mighty threats against both the infidel "Crusaders" and the assorted "apostates" of Pakistan. While he has not yet reached the rarefied levels of Osama bin Laden as an analyst of American culpability in "global warming," he is very good at demanding death to Americans, Westerners, and indigenous perverting backsliders from Islam (as he understands the religion.)

With the official job title of "acting" capo d' tutti capi, "Mullah Toofan" can put his skills of "killing humans as others kill chickens" (as one local villager reportedly described matters) to work on behalf of an armed group which has seen hard times of late. The Pakistani Army did kill a number of Taliban trigger pullers during their less than blitz-like campaigns in Swat and South Waziristan even if it has been reluctant to say the least to continue the move into the sanctuary zone of North Waziristan.

It is highly probable that the new guy will continue the policies of his two predecessors. This means Pakistan will have more suicide bombings, more mass killings, more attacks on even presumably secure, hard targets such as military and police installations. It also means that Taliban will continue to make itself increasingly detested within large segments of the local population. Whether in the FATA or the major cities of the country, the Taliban's willingness to kill has become not a strength but a potentially fatal weakness.

"Mullah Toofan" will also have to deal with the effects of Operation Moshtarak. The US Marines, British Army, and Afghan National Forces are moving in on the Taliban stronghold of Marjah in Helmand province. While the fight will be tough, the end result will see a goodly number of surviving Taliban fighters cross the border into "Mullah Toofan's" territory. Given the nature of Taliban in Pakistan's command and control system, logistics, and overall organizational perturbation, the influx of defeated guerrillas from Afghanistan will be a further cause of overall weakness.

The Pakistani Army and government have long been apprehensive regarding the proposed US/ISAF/ANF operations in Helmand as it would cause a massive flow of turban-topped, bearded Koran wavers into the FATA--particularly North Waziristan. Now that push-comes-to-shove time is upon them, the Pakistani leadership will have to decide whether or not to reconceptualize the cross border movement as an opportunity rather than a threat.

The very best time to land a heavy, perhaps fatal, blow on Taliban in Pakistan is one of confusion and disorder within Taliban ranks. The combination of ever-new senior commanders, loss of many experienced mid-level personnel, past pressure from the army of Pakistan, and the arrival of a mob of defeated (but not necessarily demoralized) Taliban gun slingers beating feet ahead of the "infidels" provides the best possible basis for neutralizing the Thugs For Mohammad as a military force.

If the Pakistani Army (and its government) can show a capacity for movement faster than that of a snail with a hernia and an offensive orientation transcending that of a rabbit, the next four to six weeks could see Taliban put on the ropes as an armed threat to Islamabad. Of course the capacity to move aggressively requires a political will to do so on the part of the government and army alike.

It is legitimate to doubt that sufficient will exists or will exist in the near-term. There are too many Islamists in both the government and army for effective political will aimed at the ending of Taliban in either Pakistan or Afghanistan to take root and flourish.

Along with the presence of Islamists and sympathizers with Islamism there is another factor enervating any effective Pakistani focus on Taliban. That factor is India. More properly it is the apparent inability of the Pakistani elite to get beyond India as the only "enemy" confronting the country. Or, to narrow the focus slightly, the problem is the willingness of many in the political and military elites of Pakistan to risk the continuation of the country in its present form in order to pursue a chimera--the conquest of Kashmir.

Irredentism is a risky basis for policy. More than a few countries in the West have discovered this truth over the years. The astigmatism shown by many individuals in Pakistan regarding Kashmir show that they have not profited by the final failure of irredentism where it has existed before.

Between Islamism and irredentism there is no real probability that Pakistan will take full--or any--advantage from the opportunities being handed them by American Predators and Operation Moshtarak. That, bucko, is the unfortunate truth about our "allies" in the war against al-Qaeda and Taliban.

Spinning Across The Line

The Iranians have made the decision to, "damn the West! Full speed ahead!" in their quest for the Really Big Mahdi Bomb.

As has been standard operating procedure with the mullahs and their men, the latest push has been covered in realms of rhetoric ranging from the dire need of "our patients" for radioisotopes from the aging US manufactured reactor to ever-so-sincere declarations that there is no incompatibility between enriching to twenty percent and the continuation of diplomatic conversations or negotiations or whatever.

Fer sure, dudes. Like you can't buy the isotopes elsewhere? Like the only place they are made is in your creaky old reactor? Get real!

And, there is no contradiction? Just what sort of hicks from the sticks do you blokes think we in the West are? You really believe that countries with the technological base and diplomatic experience the US/EU states possess don't see the fundamental contradiction?

There are several salient matters to be considered here.

The first is the Iranians do not have the capacity to actually fabricate the fuel rods for the reactor. The French do. Even the Argentinians can do the job. Not the Iranians.

Secondly, the hardest part of enriching to the ninety percent level necessary for a nuclear bomb comes at the beginning of the process. After hitting twenty percent it is, in a real way, all down hill. As few as 500 centrifuges of the type used by the Iranians could give the necessary highly enriched uranium in a matter of a couple or three months given twenty percent feedstock.

Outside of Iran is the looming reality that China will not support any new sanction regime. While the Russians are now making ugly noises over the Iranian lack of "sincerity," Vladimir Putin still gets much domestic mileage from opposing the US. The continued invocation of the US missile defense system as a roadblock to a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty is indication of this. The implication is that while China might not openly block a move at the Security Council backed by Russia, there is no certainty that Russia is in agreement with any new pressure plan.

Then, of course, it is more than a bit uncertain that any sanctions whatsoever, no matter how resolutely and completely enforced would have a positive outcome from the US/EU perspective. The Iranian government and military have shown themselves both resilient and dedicated to say nothing of creative in dealing with the past sanction regime(s).

Inside Iran the forces of government and opposition are focusing on the upcoming 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. It is possible that the "smashing blow" mentioned by the Supreme Leader will be directed against the opposition (Note: Pressure consolidates long before it fractures, particularly if the pressure is violently applied.) If so, that would be to the longer term advantage of the West.

But, before anyone gets too breathless with excited anticipation, it should be noted that the conditions inside Iran today do not run in parallel with the situation back in 1979. The opposition leadership is part of the Revolutionary generation, for example. Another consideration is that the working class has not joined the opposition. Thirty-one years ago it was the mass strikes rather than the street protests and bloodshed that cracked the regime wide open. (Admittedly it was the violence which caused President Carter to lose his tenuous grip on realpolitik regarding Iran.)

The Obama administration hopes for a new round of Security Council sponsored sanctions "within a few weeks." That is nice. However, it may be scarcely relevant.

If the Iranians can go ahead enriching to twenty percent without any meaningful as opposed to rhetorical consequences, the cone of options available to the US and the West will become severely limited. There will be essentially two left open: accept and accommodate a nuclear capable Iran or go to war.

It will be rather like July 1914 with one difference, one very critical difference to be sure. This time around one side most assuredly does not want to resort to war.

One can only hope that the mullahs of today and tomorrow and the days after are not in a great hurry to usher in the return of the Mahdi by pushing the new, Big Button in Tehran. Given the very strong eschatological (end of days or time beyond secular time or end days) thinking so rampant in Shia theological circles, it would not be prudent to bet the ranch on restraint being the primary Iranian governmental virtue.

Oh, well, as the ancient Chinese toast/curse has it, "May you live in interesting times."

We sure will be.

Push Comes To Shove Time For Taliban

Reversing the customary military practice of secrecy prior to the launch of a campaign, the US, UK, and their Afghan and NATO partners have announced in advance not only where but when they plan to open up in a major way on Taliban. The public announcements which have been carried around the world were not just a good idea, they were a brilliant ploy.

General McChrystal has made a priority of protecting Afghan civilians from war's devastation. The announcement has made sure that beaucoup noncombatants are leaving the projected zone of operations in Helmand province focusing on the city of Lashkar Gah.

Operation Moshtarak bodes to be not only one of the largest but perhaps most decisive actions in the long, long, long and previously poorly waged war. The exodus of civilians from the area, which has been a center of both Taliban strength and opium production for years, is an essential for the operations success. Knowing this the Talib forces have sought not only to prevent civilian departure but to so intimidate the local population that it could use civilians as shields against the allied troops.

No one has ever accused Afghans of being particularly slow on the uptake when it is their lives which are on the line. The last generation or so of constant warfare has honed the sense of self-preservation to a fine edge which has been in no way dulled by the Taliban's Islamist views of the love of death being more godly than a love of life. Thus, the massive display of a very timely "feet don't fail me now" mentality on the part of the civilians.

Encouragement for the flood of departure has been provided by the highly visible preparatory moves by the British troops as well as the US Marines. In this area the Brits have been the more deliberately obvious as they have staged "shaping" operations in recent days. There can be little doubt that any civilians watching these preparatory moves would find a potent reason to have important and pressing business elsewhere.

The British Army in large measure due to its superb training, very high quality leadership at all levels from the section to the brigade, unit cohesion, presents a picture of uncompromising, remorseless dedication to victory which gives it a powerful moral ascendancy over its opponents. While the Taliban are not the Argentinians of the Falkland Island fracas, they cannot be immune to the looming reality of defeat, purposeless "martyrdom," and final futility.

In a very real way the British Army is better than the legends of the Texas Rangers. (You might remember the yarn of a Ranger saying, "No one can stop a man who knows he is in the right and keeps on coming.") Even when let down by their political masters, provided with deficient or inadequate equipment, the British other ranks and the officers leading them are more than willing to "keep on coming" even against an enemy qualitatively superior. (Think Western Desert before Monty came along.)

The same may be said of the US Marines who are taking the biggest combat bite. As fighters the Marines are undeniably at the top of the heap. Looking back at the debacle in Vietnam, the historian can only conclude that the Marines of Eye Corps did the most successful, continuous, effective heavy lifting of the war--even though the Marine grunt had a bit less than a fifty-fifty chance of getting through his thirteen month tour both undead and unwounded.

With many civilians out of the way, both the Marines and the British Army have a good to excellent chance of macerating the Taliban despite prepared IEDs, fortified villages, and suicide bombers. Taliban will take a lickin' and most probably will not keep on tickin'.

Of course the operation will not be a walk over for either the Americans or the British. The good guys will take a hit--perhaps even a heavy one. In exchange the war in Afghanistan may very well have finally reached a necessary turning point. At the end of the op the Taliban may finally realize that there is no way it can achieve a military victory over the "infidels."

The biggest unknown of the upcoming fracas is the performance of the Afghan National Army. The attached Afghan force is comprised of units which have reached the highest level of training performance. But, as anyone who has felt his balls creep upward as an angry round flies by, "all training is simulated."

If the Afghan units perform successfully there is real reason to hope for the timely achievement of the minimum necessary American (and British) strategic goal: not-losing. A successful performance by the Afghan National Force would also provide substance to the concept of an Afghan polity. Finally, it would give Afghanistan a genuine national institution transcending most tribal, ethnic, linguistic identities. It would show the Afghan National Force to be what George Washington said of the post-Revolutionary War US Army, "a school for citizenship."

Should the US, UK, NATO, and Afghan forces come out way on top in the upcoming campaign, there is reason to believe that Taliban would seek to find a political accommodation with the Kabul government. As everyone realizes no internal war can be finally decided by only military means. Military operations may lead to hostilities termination but only a process of political accommodation can bring about conflict resolution.

In short, the military must smash Taliban sufficiently that the leadership is willing to accept the messy process of reaching compromise outcomes with the in-power regime. The regime must also accept that it cannot kill its way to unchallenged authority and settle for operational dominance of the nation.

At the moment Karzai seems inclined to accept that reality--if his words can be taken at face value. His less than spectacularly legitimate regime can do no other if it wants to stay in power--which it does ever so much.

Operation Moshtarak will not in and of itself bring about hostilities termination. That will take more operations, more yomping the mountains and deserts, more killing, more dying.

This implies that the essential nature of the contest in Afghanistan has not altered. At root, it is a battle of political will between the Afghan supporters of Taliban and the publics of the US, UK, and other Western countries. If we in the US or our counterparts in the UK and elsewhere lose heart before Taliban comes to grip with the new realities, then all the bravery, sacrifice, and effort will go for nothing.

While chewing on that basic truth we must consider another. When the day of conflict resolution finally arrives, the Afghanistan which emerges will not be some sort of imitation Western democracy with pluralism, tolerance, free institutions, an independent judiciary, and shopping malls. It will be a mess not unlike contemporary Iraq. When the shooting stops Afghanistan will still be heavily tribal, strongly Islamist, stone broke, and reactionary in many ways.

The best that can be hoped for is that Afghanistan in the future will not repeat the fatal error of Taliban chieftain Omar and extend "Islamic" hospitality and protection to an Osama bin Laden or a group such as al-Qaeda. Not a lofty end to envision, but a highly necessary one.

The US Gets The Old "One-Two," Again

The US has a remarkable--and completely baseless--faith in economic sanctions. The number of times such pressure has gained a positive policy outcome since the Colonial response to the Stamp Act over two hundred years back is so close to zero that no real distinction can be drawn.

More typically sanctions whether unilateral or of the multi-national sort are without effect at best and counterproductive at worst. Doubters might want to take a dekko at either the progressive slew of sanctions imposed on Imperial Japan (and the ultimate effect at Pearl Harbor) or those of George H.W. Bush on Panama--a country so dependent on the US that it used the dollar as its circulating medium--and the aftermath, Operation Just Cause.

Regardless of history and its lessons we have been at it again in the Great Iranian Nuclear Caper. To date the sanctions imposed by the UN have been without discernible effect, or at least, a noticeable, positive one. The reasons for the failure are well known and have been commented upon many times in this blog.

However, we are about to go through the motions, the well-scripted, well-choreographed and quite over-rehearsed dance of more UN Security Council sanction effort. And, once again, in an equally well-scripted, well-choreographed, over-rehearsed ploy, the Iranians and the Trolls of Beijing are moving to block or at the very least denature the US sponsored move.

Ahmedinejad made the first gesture even as he crowed over the launching of a payload of turtles, earthworms, and other lesser critters on board an Iranian rocket. The Iranian Orator-in-Chief made conciliatory noises to the presumed effect that maybe, perhaps, the Iranians just might accept the long standing UN brokered exchange of Iranian low enrichment uranium for higher octane stuff from abroad.

The Iranian ambassador to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency could not confirm the substance of his boss's statement. Neither did he deny it. The old Tehran shuffle was in play.

While Tehran shuffled, the action passed to the Trolls of Beijing. This well-practiced bunch came on stage not only on cue and on their mark but with the dialogue each and every well-honed ear around the world knew would be coming.

The ForMin got the lines. He delivered them in Paris not that many days after SecState Clinton had warned from the same city of Chinese "isolation" should they not get on board with the new sanctions. The ForMin, Yang Jiechi, opined that sanctions would not be in order given the "new" Iranian willingness to give diplomacy a chance.

Yang's timing was most unpleasant for his French hosts. The French are on the verge of assuming the Security Council's rotating presidency and they had meant to make the most of it. French PM Francois Fillon was chomping at getting the opportunity to grab the spotlight and demand the next round of sanctions, the "crippling" ones so often alluded to by Ms Clinton.

The Chinese position is pretty much of a show-stopper. No glory for the French. No pain for the Iranian regime. And, no gain for the Obama administration.

Any sort of sanction which would not be slapped down by a Chinese veto will be of such an inconsequential nature that no Iranian would notice it. Unless, of course, propaganda purposes would be served by so doing.

The UN Security Council will pass something. The Chinese will probably accept the passage of one more piece of symbolism without doing more than deploring and abstaining. A Security Council resolution of any nature is the necessary prologue to what might actually be for real sanctions by the European Union.

Russia is sort of on board for a Security Council action as the Bear's ego was bent by the Iranian rejection of the first cut of low-for-midrange uranium exchange. The Kremlin really believed they had a more "mature" relationship with the Mullahs of Tehran. The boys really don't like to be proven wrong.

Of course it is impossible to have a "mature" relation with Iran--unless you simply bow down to the will of Allah as interpreted by the Supreme Leader and his clerical coterie. Nor can mere discomfort such as that presented by the sanctions both old and the new, improved, "crippling" sort outweigh in the Tehran calculus the good which possession of a nuclear capability would automatically provide.

The reality is that Iran is run by a crew of True Believers with a strongly eschatological bent and shrewd dreams of regional hegemony and global player status. The only counter-force to the regime and its supporters is the domestic opposition.

Clearly a careful orchestration of effort between Concerned Civilized Countries and the domestic opposition is not beyond the realm of the plausible--and possible. Coupled with wide-ranging sanctions which undercut the already flaky Iranian economy (and, of course and necessity, mean real pain for the average Iranian regardless of his position on the political spectrum) a full-bore support for the domestic opposition carries the strong potential of pushing the regime over the edge with results as good for the world and the Iranian people as fatal to the regime.

In the Goldilocks game of diplomacy there are always three options. One will always be too cold--in this case, sanctions per se. One will be too hot--the "military option." The third has the potential for being "just right." This means the combination of open support for the opposition and a genuine attempt to ruin the Iranian economy lock, stock, and barrel.

The "just right" alternative perforce will be messy. And bloody. But, it beats the alternatives of having a nuclear capable mullahocracy or a very unpleasant and far from small scale war.

The clock has about run out on the Obama administration in this game. The number of viable options has dropped to one. And, only if the administration finally comes to terms with the real world and not the fantasyland it has been living in for a year now.

Islam And "Manliness"

Raymond Ibrahim has an interesting piece in Pajamas Media which raises several points central to the matters of homegrown Islamist terrorism and the presence of Americans and Europeans of the "blond hair, blue eyed" sort in Islamist centers such as Yemen. Ibrahim's main thesis is that the religious tenets of Islam have an essential appeal to young men who are not comfortable with the totems of gender neutrality current in the West generally and the US in particular.

There is no doubt but that a large germ of truth resides in Ibrahim's analysis. The past forty years have not been comfortable ones for those of us of the male persuasion who came of age before the explosive growth of feminism and its concomitant drive for cross-the-board equality. The effects of the feminist and post-feminist thinking on younger men struck the Geek hard as he taught college students who had apparently been led to believe that men were solely and completely responsible for all the unpleasant features of life from wars to crime to, presumably, the flu and common cold.

The eons long "battle of the sexes" has morphed into an uneasy coexistence between parties who do not really know one another beyond the fact that neither can exist without the other's presence, support, and (hopefully) intimate cooperation. It isn't a cold war exactly, but neither is it a hot peace of mutual understanding and appreciation.

There is no surprise that the need for constant reinterpretation, re-engagement, re-evaluation and re-negotiation of the details of life between man and woman in all spheres of life proves more than a little unsettling to some men--both those who are young and those for whom youth is but a faraway memory. Life in the Islamist environment of stiff rules and requirements, clear definition of responsibility--and definite subordination of women would seem halcyon to those who are discommoded by life in the West with its hazy lines, changing rules, and shifting tectonic plates of relationship.

The problem comes in that the Islamist view of the role of men in society as well as their firm belief that men in the West are soft, decadent, and deeply feminized are wrong in all respects. Those who migrate across the great cultural divide between the civilization of the West and the retrograde barbarism of Islamism are pursuing a mirage far more destructive of life than the optical distortions of the desert heat.

The true role of men--both before and after the tidal wave of feminism--is and always has been to protect, cherish, and love. It is not and never has been as the Islamists argue proper or necessary for men to subordinate women--let alone imprison them or kill them over something as specious as honor.

Men do kill. Typically they kill of necessity without any joy or desire. Those who do kill without sufficient cause or justification are considered outlaws not heroes by others of their sex. Similarly, men who hunt without necessity nor discretion are viewed not as supermen but rather akin to a weasel in the chicken pen.

Hunting--and killing--are male. There is room for both, deep and ample room, in the genetically determined back brain of all men. This realization caused men long ago, long back in the deepest fog of the prehistory of our species to derive the rituals of passage between the estate of the boy and that of the man.

All the rituals including those practiced by the Apache portion of the Geek's ancestry emphasized the vulnerability of the individual man, the need for him to cooperate completely with other men for the benefit of the group. A group which necessarily included women and children. These rituals provided the means by which the candidate for manhood would control and focus his aggression, his strength, his totality for the good of all and not simply for himself and his desires.

Islamism does not do any of these things. It places no limits and encourages no man to control his passions, his strength, his aggression for the real, immediate, and specific benefit of the collective of which he is one small but vital component. Rather, Islamism commands men to act as though they have never outgrown the first rush of adolescence when hormones ran high and self-control sank to the lower depths.

In a very real way those males who flee the West with its uncertainties for Islamism with its false sureness are seeking a never-ending bout of untrammeled adolescence where self-gratification and specious notions of potency triumph all else. These fugitives from manhood seek to prolong the freedom of the teenager.

Koranic justifications, invocations of the life of the Perfect Man, Mohammad, or the lives of his nearly perfect Companions do not alter the ground truth. That truth is simply this: False men, living false lives of dreams, dreams of killing, raping, subjugating, are travesties of the reality of manhood.

The reality of manhood is far less attractive. It is accepting the bitter truth that men are expendable. Men take risks. Men are here to face down the mastodon, the saber tooth tiger. To die if need be so that a woman--or another man--might live.

It is far easier to take the teenage route. To fancy one the best, the conquerer, the smiter of evil, the killer. It is hard, damn hard, to accept the way of the man, the way of sacrifice, the way of injury, the way of dying to protect another, to interpose one's only body between the perpetual teenager with a gun and the lady one loves.